Madras High Court
Rajesh vs State Rep. By on 6 February, 2025
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.R.C.No.1545 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.02.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.R.C.No.1545 of 2022
Rajesh ... Petitioner
Vs.
State rep. By
The Inspector of Police,
Katpadi Police Station,
Katpadi, Vellore District.
(Cr.No.118 of 2013). ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of
Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment and conviction passed by
the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Vellore, Vellore District
dated 25.02.2022 in C.A.No.34 of 2019 confirming the judgment passed by
the learned Judicial Magistrate, Katpadi in C.C.No.41 of 2013 for an
offence under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC, convicting and sentencing
the petitioner to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 279
of IPC I/d of the payment of above fine amount to undergo a simple
Page No.1 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1545 of 2022
imprisonment for a period of 3 weeks; and to undergo simple imprisonment
for a period of 2 years and a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section
304(A) of IPC I/d of the payment of above fine amounts to undergo a
simple imprisonment for a period of 2 months.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Vijayaraj
For Respondent : Mr.L.Baskaran,
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
assisted by Ms.M.Sumi Arnica
ORDER
The petitioner was convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Katpadi (Trial Court) vide judgment, dated 05.03.2019 in C.C.No.41 of
2013 and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of two
years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo Simple
Imprisonment for two months for offence under Section 304(A) IPC and to
pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for offence under Section 279 IPC, in default to
undergo Simple Imprisonment for three weeks for offence under Section
279 IPC. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before
the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Vellore (Lower Appellate
Court) in Crl.A.No.34 of 2019 and the same was dismissed vide judgment,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
dated 25.02.2022 confirming the conviction and sentence of the Trial Court.
Challenging the same, the present criminal revision case is filed.
2.Gist of the case is that the respondent Police registered an FIR
(Ex.P3) in Crime No.118 of 2013 for offence under Sections 279 and
304(A) of IPC against the petitioner on the complaint given by PW1/defacto
complainant, the brother of the deceased Saraswathi. The case is that on
24.01.2013 at about 06.45 p.m., near Rajalinga Nagar Bus Stand (Chitoor-
Katpadi Road), when PW1 sister Saraswathi had gone to purchase groceries
in a provision shop, at that time the petitioner who came in his two wheeler
bearing Reg.No.TN-23-BC-6329 from North to South in Chitoor-Katpadi
Road in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased
Saraswathi. Due to which, the deceased Saraswathi sustained injuries on
her head, hands and all over her body and died on the spot. The defacto
complainant/PW1 who had come to purchase medicines in a nearby medical
shop, saw the accident and found the petitioner coming in his bike in a rash
and negligent manner without headlight. Immediately, PW1 called his
brother/PW2 through phone and thereafter both of them, took their injured
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
sister to the hospital in an auto where the Doctor on examination declared
brought dead.
3.On the next day, i.e., 25.01.2013, PW1 lodged a complaint (Ex.P1)
to PW10 who registered FIR (Ex.P3) in Crime No.118 of 2013 against the
petitioner. PW9/Investigating Officer visited the scene of occurrence,
prepared Observation Mahazar (Ex.P2), Rough Sketch (Ex.P4) in presence
of witnesses, recorded the statement of the defacto complainant and other
witnesses present in the scene of occurrence, sent the two wheeler of the
petitioner for motor vehicle inspection, conducted inquest on the body of
the deceased and sent the body for postmortem. After collecting
postmortem report (Ex.P6) and Motor Vehicle Inspection report (Ex.P5),
charge sheet filed before the Trial Court. During trial, on the side of the
prosecution, ten witnesses examined as PW1 to PW10 and six documents
marked as Exs.P1 to P6. On the side of the defence, no witness examined
and no document marked. On conclusion of the trial, the petitioner was
convicted by the Trial Court as stated above and the same was confirmed by
the Lower Appellate Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though it was
projected that statements of all witnesses (PW1 to PW10) recorded on
25.01.2013, it was sent to the Court belatedly along with the charge sheet.
The Postmortem Doctor was examined on 12.02.2013 and the two wheeler
involved in the accident produced on 11.02.2013 and the Motor Vehicle
Inspector statement recorded on 12.02.2013. On the very same day, along
with the Postmortem Certificate (Ex.P6) and the Motor Vehicle Inspection
Report (Ex.P5) charge sheet filed before the Trial Court. He further
submitted that PW1/defacto complainant, brother of the deceased
Saraswathi who is projected as eye witness to the occurrence, not seen the
accident proper. PW1 states that at the time of accident, he was at the
medical shop purchasing medicines which is located behind the bus stand
and from there, the accident spot is not visible. The Rough Sketch (Ex.P4),
proves that the medical shop is behind the bus stop and far away from the
accident spot. PW1 further states that the accident took place at about 07.35
p.m in the dark and he could not identify even the colour of the vehicle. In
such circumstances, presence of P.W.1 is highly doubtful and PW1 could
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
not have seen the accident. PW2, another brother of the deceased is an
hearsay witness, he admits that it was PW1 who informed about the
accident. PW3 is the husband of the deceased Saraswathi who was in
Bangalore and he was informed about the accident. PW4, the other
projected eye witness, admits not seen the accident. PW5 and PW6, the
other projected eye witnesses to the accident admit that they are friends of
the son of the deceased and according to them, the accident took place
between 05.30 and 06.00 p.m. But PW1's statement is that the accident took
place at about 07.30 p.m. There are contradictions between the evidence of
P.W.1, PW5 and PW6. Further PW6 admits that he deposed in evidence at
the request of his friend/son of the deceased. Thus, there are inconsistencies
and inherent contradictions in the evidence of PW1, PW5 and PW6.
5.He further submitted that PW7, the other projected eye witness to
the occurrence admits that he heard about the accident. PW8 and PW9, the
witnesses to the Observation Mahazar (Ex.P2) and Rough Sketch (Ex.P4)
admit that they signed the documents Exs.P2 & P4 in the Police Station not
at the scene of occurrence. PW10 is the Investigating Officer through
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
whom the FIR (Ex.P3), Rough Sketch (Ex.P4), Motor Vehicle Inspection
Report (Ex.P5) and Postmortem Certificate (Ex.P6) marked. In this case,
the Motor Vehicle Inspector and the Postmortem Doctor not examined,
hence Exs.P5 and P6 cannot be considered in evidence. The Trial Court
without considering these vital contradictions and lacunas in the
prosecution case, convicted the petitioner. The Lower Appellate Court
without independently assessing the evidence and materials, mechanically
dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction of the Trial Court. Hence,
he prayed for acquittal.
6.In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner
relied on the following decisions for the point that the witnesses admitted
that it is a four road junction and also a busy market place where the
vehicles cannot ply in high speed, hence the question of rash and negligence
would not arise, further Motor Vehicle Inspection Report and Postmortem
Certificate produced through the Investigating Officer is not proper and it
cannot be said that these documents are proved in the manner known to law.
1. Syad Akbar v. State of Karnataka reported in (1980) 1 SCC 30.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2005) 6 SCC 1.
3. R.Sridharan v. State by, The Inspector of Police, R-4, Pondy Bazar
Traffic Investigation Wing, T.Nagar, Chennai-17 in Crl.R.C.No.424
of 2015, dated 15.06.2022 and another.
4. Mani v. The State rep. The Inspector of Police, Traffic Investigating
Wing, Krishnagiri District reported in CDJ 2022 MHC 5034.
5. P.Selvaraj v. State represented by Station House Officer,
Pudhuchathiram Police Station, Cuddalore District in
Crl.R.C.No.888 of 2017.
6. P.Rajappan v. State of Kerala reported in 1986 Crl.L.J 511.
7. State v. Kuldeep Singh, dated 07.02.2020.
8. Mohanraj v. State by Sub Inspector of Police, Komarapalayam
Police Station, Erode District in Crl.R.C.No.118 of 2018.
9. Arumugam v. State by Sub-Inspector of Police, Uttukuli Police
Station, Erode District reported in 2001-2-L.W. (Crl.) 773.
10.Jerald v. State by Inspector of Police, Kancheepuram Taluk Police
Station, Kancheepuram reported in 2001-2-L.W. (Crl.) 615.
11.K.K.Mani v. State rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, Thalaivasal Police
Station, Salem District reported in (2009) 3 MLJ (Crl) 700.
12.N.Kinnaskandan v. State represented by, Inspector of Police,
Bungalowpudur Police Station, Gobichettipalayam, Erode District in
Crl.R.C.No.1118 of 2020.
13.Boopathi v. The State represented by the Inspector of Police,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Mohanur Police Station, Namakkal in Crl.R.C.No.851 of 2021, dated
20.12.2024.
14.Kumaravel v. State rep by Inspector of Police, Namagiripet Police
Station in Crl.R.C.No.1140 of 2014, dated 16.03.2022.
15.Subburam v. State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Dindigul Taluk
Police Station, Dindigul District reported in 2021 CDJ MHC 6783.
16.M.Subramani v. State rep. by Inspector of Police, Edapadi Police
Station, Salem District reported in (2017) 1 L.W (Crl.) 160.
17.State of Karnataka v. Satish reported in (1998) 8 SCC 493.
18.Puttaiah @ Mahesh v. State by Rural Police, Hassan represented by
Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, Bangalore in Criminal
Review Petition No.1317 of 2010, dated 04.03.2016.
19.Sankarapandiyan v. State by The Inspector of Police, Kancheepuram
District reported in CDJ 2019 MHC 5962.
20.Srinivasan v. State rep.by Inspector of Poice, Kadampuliyur Poice
Station, Cuddalore District in Crl.R.C.No.1090 of 2020.
21.Surendran v. Sub-Inspector of Police reported in AIR 2021 SC 3197.
22.George v. State of Kerala in SLP (Crl.) No.11041 of 2024.
23.Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (1982) 2 SCC 439.
24.V.Kumar v. State represented by Inspector of Police, Komangalam
Police Station, Coimbatore District reported in (2011) 1 MLJ (Crl)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the
respondent Police submitted that in this case, PW1 is the defacto
complainant and eye witness to the accident taken place on 24.01.2023 at
about 06.45 p.m. In the complaint (Ex.P1), PW1 narrated the accident that
when he was in medical shop to buy medicines, at that time his
sister/Saraswathi was proceeding to provision shop to buy groceries and
when Saraswathi was crossing the road, the petitioner came in his two
wheeler in a rash and negligent manner without switching on the headlight
in the dark, dashed against Saraswathi and caused the accident. Due to
which, Saraswathi sustained injuries. Immediately, PW1 called his
brother/PW2 and informed about the accident. Both of them took the
injured Saraswathi to the hospital where she was declared brought dead. On
the next day, PW10/Investigating Officer received a complaint (Ex.P1) and
FIR (Ex.P3) registered against the petitioner for offence under Sections 279
and 304(A) IPC. On registration of FIR, PW10 visited the scene of
occurrence on 25.01.2014, prepared Observation Mahazar (Ex.P2), Rough
Sketch (Ex.P4), examined the witnesses present in the accident spot,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
conducted inquest and body was produced for postmortem. The vehicle of
the petitioner was produced before the Motor Vehicle Inspector for
inspection and the Motor Vehicle Inspection Report (Ex.P6) collected and
the Postmortem certificate (Ex.P7) collected from the Postmortem Doctor
and thereafter on conclusion of investigation, charge sheet filed. The Trial
Court and the Lower Appellate Court had rightly convicted the petitioner,
hence he prayed for dismissal of the revision.
8.Considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the materials, it
is seen that PW1 is the defacto complainant who lodged a complaint
(Ex.P1) to the respondent Police stating that on 24.01.2013 at about 06.45
p.m., when his sister Saraswathi went to a provision shop to purchase
groceries near Rajalinga Nagar Bus Stand and PW1 was in the medical shop
purchasing medicines, saw petitioner riding a bike coming in a rash and
negligent manner from North to South in Chitoor-Katpadi Road without
honking the horn and switching on the headlight dashed against his sister.
In this case, the occurrence took place at about 06.45 p.m., but from
Ex.P4/rough sketch, it is seen that there is no lamp post or any source of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
light. In the Observation Mahazar (Ex.P2), there is no reference to any
availability of light. PW1 in his evidence admits that since it was dark at
the time of accident and he could not identify the colour of the two wheeler
involved in the accident. In such circumstances, PW1 could not have seen
the accident.
9.PW2 admits that it is a four road junction and no vehicle can ply
with high speed. PW3 is the husband of the deceased and he was in
Bangalore at the time of accident. PW4 projected eye witness to the
accident admits that he did not see the accident and PW5 is an another
projected eye witness who took the injured to the hospital along with PW1.
Both PW4 and PW5 admit that they are friends of Saranraj, son of the
deceased. PW6 admits that on the request of Saranraj, son of the deceased,
he deposed. PW7 is the friend of PW1's brother. In this case, PW8 and
PW9 are the witnesses to Observation Mahazar (Ex.P2) and Rough Sketch
(Ex.P4), both admit that they signed the documents in the Police Station.
The only witness is PW1 who said to have seen the accident directly. PW1
admits that he was proceeding to the medical shop situated behind the bus
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
stand away from the road and accident spot, from there he could not seen
the accident. Added to it, PW1 admits that since the accident took place in
the dark, he was unable to identify even the colour of the vehicle. PW1
admits that it is a four road junction always crowded and there is no
possibility of riding the bike in a rash and negligence manner. In this case,
admittedly, the Motor Vehicle Inspection report (Ex.P5) and the
Postmortem Report (Ex.P6) marked through the Investigating Officer and
not through the author of the document.
10.This Court time and again deprecated marking of these vital
documents in a 304(A) IPC case through the Investigating Officer, and it
would be appropriate that the author of the documents namely the Motor
Vehicle Inspector and the Postmortem Doctor to be examined as witnesses.
In this case, the Motor Vehicle Inspection Report (Ex.P5) and the
Postmortem Report (Ex.P6) marked through the Investigating Officer.
Moreover, all the witnesses in this case are relatives to the defacto
complainant/PW1 and the deceased. Though it is a four road junction, no
public examined. These vital discrepancies and contradictions not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
considered by both the Courts below. This Court finds the conviction of the
petitioner not sustainable.
11.In view of the above, this Criminal Revision Case stands allowed
setting aside the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Katpadi, dated
05.03.2019 in C.C.No.41 of 2013 and the judgment of the learned Principal
District and Sessions Judge, Vellore in Crl.A.No.34 of 2019, dated
25.02.2022. The petitioner is acquitted from all charges.
06.02.2025
Index:Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
vv2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Principle District and Sessions Judge,
Vellore.
2.The Judicial Magistrate,
Katpadi.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Katpadi Police Station,
Katpadi, Vellore District.
4.The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
vv2
06.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
